View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Delivery MoSCoW |  Architecture Architecture Inception Canvas |  Decision Making DACI |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a release carries too many demands and priorities are only ever negotiated, MoSCoW creates clear boundaries for the next cut. Must, Should, Could, and Won't make commitment, room for maneuver, and trade-off logic visible to everyone involved. | The Architecture Inception Canvas bundles the first architecture questions into a compact decision picture. It fits when an initiative is still in motion but still needs clear guardrails. | In cross-functional decisions, responsibilities quickly blur between approval, influence, and execution. DACI arranges these roles so decision pressure, contribution, and information stay cleanly separated. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-90 min | 1-2 h | 30-60 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-8 | 2-10 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized Backlog, Release Scope, Tradeoff Notes | Inception Canvas, Risks, Goal List, Open Questions | DACI Matrix, Decision Owner, Decision Log | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationScopeDecision | AlignmentArchitectureCanvas | DecisionRolesGovernanceAlignment | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |